The counter is that for practical purposes agnosticism and atheism have the same outcome.

Do you rule out a rotting pile of spaghetti in another dimension?

How does the atheist rule out the existence of God?

No they don’t as to the agnostic this means that the possibility of God existing is equal to it not existing and they do not rule it out either way.

I don’t know ask them…I’m just going by the definition of atheism as to how they rule it out I have no idea but I guess they rule it out due to lack of evidence.

no I do not.

The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

As Banno says, it makes no practical difference. There's another thread on this already somewhere.

Many atheists take the position that there are no convincing grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists - they do not say there is no God. Agnosticism refers to a knowledge claim, atheism refers to belief.

Hence agnostic atheists who are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of a deity, but are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

I acknowledge that I do not know but I do not believe in the existence god or gods.

Do you rule out a spaghetti monster who lives on the back of your head and only you can't see?

I don’t know ask them…I’m just going by the definition of atheism as to how they rule it out I have no idea but I guess they rule it out due to lack of evidence. — Deus

The definition just says that atheism is, disbelief (non-belief) in God. It doesn't mean the atheist rules out the existence of God.

there’s a practical difference if in fact God does exist. Death, afterlife, heaven, reincarnation, the concept of the soul which of course in most cases are only confirmed either way when a person dies. IF it turns out that God does in fact exist then there is no problem for either position agnostic or Atheist. It’s not a big deal, it just shows that the agnostic is more open minded to the idea and potentiality of the existence of God whereas the Atheist outright dismisses it. Well most do but let’s use the most commonly held atheist argument which is as per your definition. So let’s turn our attention to that. For the atheist then there are no convincing grounds/evidence to the existence of God. It’s this where the problem I am trying to address lies when comparing the atheist to the agnostic which does cause a slight problem as practically and fundamentally they’re almost identical positions allowing for the way it’s defined…

At the beginning of this post I made sure I used the definitions of what these two positions entail to for the sake of clarity and it is these two different positions that I wish to address when it comes to what atheism is as opposed to Agnosticism

Well this is one of the issues. The varying degrees of Atheism so it really is a debate between hard atheism and soft atheism (aka Agnosticism?)

Atheism is about belief agnosticism is about knowledge - they are two different things. Atheism only addresses belief in a deity - Zeus or Allah say. Some atheists believe in astrology and the supernatural. They just don't believe in the god idea.

I acknowledge that I do not know but I do not believe in the existence god or gods.

How does this work in terms of compatibility between two seemingly contradictory statements…if you acknowledge that you do not know then how could you hold the belief that God does not exist rather than he MIGHT exist.

Deus, I suspect that epistemology lies at the heart of your concerns here. Forget God, we don't really know anything with certainty. Knowledge is human created and often tentative and speculative. Science is a fallibilistic approach to gaining reliable knowledge based on the best evidence available but it should not make proclamations about ultimate truth. We simply can't say unless you are a dogmatist. The nature of certainty lies at the heart of this matter.

why would I ? I do not rule it out even if everybody told me it’s behind me …it could all be part of a ploy. Never rule anything out especially God, ok I understand you exaggerate to make a point.

Given those definitions, I don't see them as inconsistent or one as "better" than the other, but complementary instead. "Without god" belief. "Without god-knowledge" belief. No different than saying "I don't believe in aliens" and "I don't believe we know whether or not there are aliens". If god, like an alien, shows up, then that would be a good reason to reconsider both beliefs. Also, many believers have always 'believed in belief' itself (e.g. clerics, theologians, sovereigns) and have carried on as if "there's a god" even though they did not actually believe so.

:up:

@Deus

Well this is one of the issues. The varying degrees of Atheism so it really is a debate between hard atheism and soft atheism (aka Agnosticism?) — Deus

Yes, I'm a soft atheist, an agnostic. Richard Dawkins on the other hand is a hard atheist, believing there is no god.

It's probably about time I re-read his book The God Delusion.

As Sartre says, we start with freedom (will) and end in "reason". Authenticity takes responsibility but too many look for reasons to justify their actions and God becomes their scapegoat. To those trying to become friends with the judge, it seems clear that he exists

There are all kinds of things I do not know but have beliefs about.

Forget God? No, because it’s such a loaded concept and comes with many assumptions about its nature. This is the thing though I appreciate what you say if the big guy really wanted to give us clues about his existence he easily could do that throughout the universe with the laws of physics and the maths that drives it which through science we as humans are starting to unravel and discover and describe using maths as a language. Think about the forces that hold a nuclei together or the electrons around it…the beauty of this design that holds matter together to form larger structures … without these scientific laws surely there would be nothing … so it is these laws built in the universe which makes me a believer of course but it’s more than that it’s unquantifiable personal experience which I will of course try to ignore for the sake of being unbiased.



Interesting, so let me add a further statement to further the analogy of Aliens/God and allow you to tell me what the difference is…

“There are no Aliens”

“I believe there are no Aliens”

There’s no difference in the two above statement as far as I am concerned it’s just that the second statement inputs belief which is not based on evidence. The first statement qualifies it or turns personal belief into fact which of course is ridiculous in this example as nobody knows if life exists elsewhere in the vastness of this universe or we are the only ones. As far as our scientific apparatus we have not been able to detect them but we cannot claim they do not exist. This is the issue with God too for atheists, hard atheists especially…there is no God is equivalent to there are no Aliens.

The Agnostic would holding the softer atheist position comes perhaps closer to the truth than the hard atheist. What I mean closer to the truth is that their position is truer or true.

There is no god or there is no aliens could also be true but it’s just more unlikely

All besides the point with respect to your opening post. I responded to that and not "whether or not god/aliens exist". Belief (or lack thereof). For me, at least, the distinction you draw in the OP is, as one says, a distinction without a (substantive, practical) difference.

Think about the forces that hold a nuclei together or the electrons around it…the beauty of this design that holds matter together to form larger structures … without these scientific laws surely there would be nothing … so it is these laws built in the universe which makes me a believer of course but it’s more than that it’s unquantifiable personal experience which I will of course try to ignore for the sake of being unbiased. — Deus

If you are a believer you are obviously going to prefer agnosticism because there appears to be room for the apologist's familiar arguments.

To believe in God is something that can't really be done. Derrida rightly points out that God is beyond reason so the best stance is atheism as the negative way way to knowledge. There is no belief in God that is real. Whether there is a God in the sense that there might be water on a planet is not a good (hypothetical) question

It’s not a preference I actually don’t care! :wink: although I have to admit Pascal had an interesting take on it with his Pascal’s wager although personally I wouldn’t go that far.

↪Banno No they don’t as to the agnostic this means that the possibility of God existing is equal to it not existing and they do not rule it out either way. — Deus

You entirely missed the point of what I posted. Notice that I said That there was no practical difference. Notions of heaven and hell are not practical. In so far as they make a difference to ones behaviour, an agnostic who goes to church just in case is not all that agnostic.

If your purpose here is to understand the difference agnostics atheists and theists then you really should spend some time contemplating what has been said by myself and others.

To believe in God is something that can't really be done.

Sure it can there are theists everywhere of all denominations just goes to show you that it can be done.

They only claim to be theist. The human mind cannot believe in God without fooling itself. Everyone is at the core an atheist and in philosophy an agnostic

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

My thought is that an individual's beliefs are too nuanced to be fully captured by a label. In a sense, I'm an agnostic-deist - I think it's a live possibility that some sort of entity might exist that intentionally caused the universe. I also consider such an entity's existence to be irrelevant, because IMO, a God-of-religion is not a live option. It's merely logically possible.

You entirely missed the point of what I posted. Notice that I said That there was no practical difference.

There isn’t, you’re right! Not practically, however there’s a conceptual difference or the difference in definition which I am still trying to understand so bear with me.

I have now realised I should have made this post about what the differences actually are before attempting to tackle which position is more prudent rather than better that I used in my original post.

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. — Deus

I fully agree. Though I've been accused of "evangelism" and all sorts of nonsense here, my position is closest to agnosticism which, from a purely philosophical perspective, seems preferable to unqualified atheism.

I can see no advantage in denying the existence of metaphysical realities on philosophical grounds.